Re: [PATCH 00/10] Updated ML300 & ML403 patches

Peter Ryser wrote:

quoted

Hmm, did you use the ml403 and ml300 def configs?  What date did you 
pull Linus' tree?  Kumar and Paul were talking today about some serial 
subsystem breakage on the linux-2.6 tree this weekend... I'll fast 
forward tonight and try it on my board. 

Okay, please let me know how this works for you.

quoted

Try seeking to commit: 67daf5f11f06b9b15f8320de1d237ccc2e74fe43
That's what I generated the latest patches against. 

Hmm, I only recently switched to using git. Is this number string some 
kind of a tag that I can synchronize my local git tree to? If so, how?

Yea, the number is kind of like a raw tag without a name associated with 
it.  The cg-seek command can be used to get you there.  (But you also 
need to have cogito installed)

quoted

quoted

Anyway, there is another issue that I would like to bring up and it 
has to do with xparameters.h. The xparameters.h file, or more 
exactly, the xparameters_* file, is automatically generated by EDK 
and is then used to configure the devices in the Linux kernel at 
compile time. While I understand the desire to get away from a static 
device definition to device enumeration at run-time, the current set 
of patches is a step backwards for users from a useability point of 
view. Users will now have to modify xparameters*.h by hand which is 
an error-prone process. 

Actually, users should *never* modifiy generated files.  The intent is 
that board specific fixups go directly into the top level 
xparameters.h so that newly generated files don't have to be touched.  
But yes, I understand what you mean. 

An EDK user is free to choose arbitrary names for his peripherals. 
Additionally, Base System Builder uses different names for various 
boards (historically). With that it is impossible to make static 
assignments in xparameters.h. If you go back to the 2.4 kernel and have 
a look at xparameters_ml300.h you can see that the assignment of boards 
specific parameters to Linux specific parameters is done in there and 
that xparameters.h is basically used to chose the proper xparameters_* 
file for a given board.

okay

quoted

quoted

Additionally, the original 'redefines' are now replaced with 
redefines in xparameters.h but differently for every board. I suggest 
we keep the 2.4 methodology until we can come up with a better 
approach to enumerate devices at run-time.

Andrei & I are already discussing this.  I'm going to change the 
xparameters redefines to provide a default set of mappings that can be 
used if xparameters_*.h has the linux specific mappings. 

Thanks. Why not just use the xparameters_ml300.h file created by the 
system_linux.xmp in the EDK reference design for the ML403 and rename it 
to xparameters_ml403.h for inclusion into the kernel tree? We could then 
make a change in EDK, add a parameter that lets the user specify the 
board he uses, and with that automatically create an xparameters_ml403.h 
(or any other board for that matter).

I don't understand what you mean.  It sounds like your suggesting I do 
exactly opposite what you're arguing; hand modify one of the 
xparameters_*.h files.  Are you saying that edk can't generate Linux 
redefines for the ml403 at the moment?

I do *not* think I should replace the edk-generated xparameters_ml403.h 
with a hacked xparameters_ml300.h file.  I'd rather use the generated 
_ml403 file and change the infrastructure when the Linux redefines are 
ready.

quoted

However, due to the fact that generated xparam files don't have the 
Linux redefines if the FPGA engineer doesn't select a linux bsp.

That's not a recommended flow. It's very easy to create an EDK design 
with the proper settings and since it is very likely that things change 
during the design process of the FPGA the small investment into making 
the proper settings in the tool will save a lot of time in the end.

I understand that it's not *recommended*; I'm just saying it's not 
always *reality*  :p

quoted

  I think it's important to allow user defined 'fixups' for their 
board. (I've personally worked on a couple of projects where the FPGA 
engineer would not generate the Linux BSP).  Design specific fixups 
can go into the top level xparameters.h without touching the generated 
file 

I strongly believe that this approach fixes things in the wrong place. 
The correct thing to do is to use EDK to create a proper xparameters_*.h 
that matches the FPGA design. In your methodology, if the user decides 
to change the peripheral names in EDK he will have to go back and change 
the defines in xparameters.h. With the 2.4 kernel methodology that is 
not necessary as such changes will be represented in a regenerated 
board-specific xparameters_*.h

???

Yes; but I already said that I'll change the patch to use the Xilinx 
redefines.  My argument is simply that *if* changes are required, there 
is a way for the user to do it.  In the normal (recommended) case; 
nothing will need to be done.  (think Larry Wall's quote: "easy things 
easy; hard things possible)

When it is needed; the fixups will be in xparameters.h; not 
xparameters_*.h; and they'll be for a specific port.  The fixups will 
only need to be done once per project (most likely).

quoted

<rant> BTW; it really bugs me that edk will generate different xparam 
files depending on the bsp; why isn't there a single standard set of 
data that is loaded into all xparam files; regardless of software 
target?  Some no-OS targets need the same information that a Linux 
port needs. </rant> 

EDK creates an xparameters.h that matches the names of the parameters in 
the hardware design. However, EDK is capable of assuming other 
personalities than 'standalone', for example Linux.

My point is that the Linux redefines are useful to more than just Linux 
ports.  Don't you think standalone apps could also benefit from a 
sane-set of defines for peripherals?  In other words; shouldn't the 
Linux redefines be always available (and called something more generic)?

With the Linux 
personality it creates the proper files AND directory structure for 
inclusion into the Linux kernel. Ideally, the source files that are used 
to create the Linux bsp for a given FPGA design should be included in 
the kernel tree and be maintained in there (maybe, in the xparameters 
directory). I'm not so sure though how well this would be accepted in 
the community. Opinions?

I'll get back to you on this; I've got some thoughts; but they'll take a 
while to coallate.

quoted

I've avoided using the same names as used by the Linux redefines 
because I don't know how stable the linux bsp naming convention is, 
and I want to avoid a naming conflict.  If you can *guarantee* me that 
those linux redefines are stable, then I have no problem using them 
instead of the new defines that are currently in the patch.  If they 
are not; then I'll just do a one-to-one mapping into a non-conflicting 
namespace, and users can provide custom definitions as needed. 

The names are stable. They have not changed since xparameters_ml300.h 
has been initially published to the 2.4 repository and there are no 
intentions on changing them. And again, we really want to move towards a 
structure that allows for detecting peripherals at run-time. That will 
improve useability by a magnitude as no recompilation of the Linux 
kernel will be needed when the FPGA design changes.

okay, I'll change the patch to use those names.

quoted

This really isn't a big deal anyway; most of this discussion will 
become moot in short order.  Sometime in the next few releases, 
linuxppc will flip over to using a flattened device tree to pass 
device information from the boot loader to the kernel.  xparameters 
will drop out of the kernel proper entirely except for the 
edk-generated device drivers (which is another issue entirely).  All 
the xparam stuff will be extracted into a device tree by u-boot or the 
zImage wrapper.  The kernel just won't care.  :) 

I agree. That's the way to go. Let's work towards that goal and keep 
xparameters_* as they have been in 2.4 for the moment.

quoted

quoted

Specific to the patch: XPAR_DDR_SIZE is not the same as XPAR_MEM_*. 
XPAR_DDR_SIZE is specifically defined by the user as part of the BSP 
generation and indicates how much memory is available for Linux. This 
can be (and typically is) the same as the physically available memory 
but can be less than that. On the other hand XPAR_MEM_* can be the 
same or a multiple of the physically available memory (aliasing for 
cached and non-cached accesses). Statically defining the memory size 
in xparameters_ml403.h is not desirable. This is especially true for 
the multi-processor FPGA devices that might want to share the 
physically available memory between themselves.

As you can see in embed_config.c; I already discovered this the hard 
way   :( 

Right. Sorry, I was quoting the wrong file. The value should not be 
hard-coded in embed_config.c but instead XPAR_DDR_SIZE should be used 
which is defined in xparameters_ml403.h.

ok

quoted

Hmmm, I don't see any XPAR mem defines in xparameters_ml300.h.  (I 
don't have a copy of the linux xparams for ml403 in front of me at the 
moment)  Is this something new? 

I was referring to XPAR*MEM*, i.e. the base address and high address 
definition for the memory in EDK.

quoted

Really, this isn't statically defined anyway.  The bootloader (u-boot 
or zImage) passes the memory size into the kernel; and in fact the 
kernel command line; or the board setup code can restrict the amount 
of mem used by the kernel.  XPAR_MEM_* isn't used by the kernel proper 
at all. 

Agreed.

quoted

Thanks for the comments. 

Thanks for making this patch available. I know how much hard work it is 
to get this done.

quoted

Another issue we need to discuss is if/how to support the xilinx 
generated BSP in the kernel proper; but I'll leave that for a 
different email. 

Okay.

quoted

If there's enough interest; I'll setup another git tree for the virtex 
specific patches. 

Hmm, interesting idea. Let's see what others think.

- Peter

cool, thanks.

g.


-- 
Grant Likely, B.Sc. P.Eng.
Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.
(403) 663-0761